Custer chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, Black Hills, D.T. [S.D.]) 1880-1890, 1887-12-17
PROHIBITIONS TRIUMPH.
Yhe Supreme Court Of the United States
Decides the Kansas Cases,
Affirming the Validity OF the P%r0hibitory
Laws.

WAsHIYSfoS, Dec. 5.-A very important
decision, and one likely to be far-reaching in
its consequences, was rendered In the supreme
court to-day, In the so-called Kaneas Irohibi-
ton cases OF Mugler against the state OF
Kansas and the state or Kansas against Sci
bold aud others. The Judgment Of the C urt
was pronounced In a long and ,lsborate opin-
ion by Justice Harlan, who said:
The general question In each case is wheth
er the prob bl,ion statutes If X ,nsas are In
conf ct with that clause Of the four,eeoth
amendment which provides that "No state
shall make or enforce any law whicn SHAH
abrioRe the privileges or immanities OF cin-
zens Ct tbs y lated States, nor shall any state
deprive any person OF life, liberty, or prop
erty without due process OK law" That leg-
~islatlou by a statute prohibiting the mauufsc-
ture within her limits OF intoxicstiT g liquors
60 be there sold or battered for general use as
q beverage, does not necessarily infringe on
any right, privilege or immunity assured by
the constitution Of the United States Ii
made clear By the decision OF this court, rem
dered before and since the adoption OF the
fourteenth amendment. 1t Is, however, con
tended thai although a state may prohibit
the manufacture OF Intoxicating liquors TO-
sale or barter within her limits for general
Use as u hev"rrs', no convention or l,gisla
ture hss the rignt, under our form Of govern
ment, 30 prohibIt any citizen from msnufsc-
turing for his own use, or for * Jort or sto'-
age, any srti;ie OF food or drink not cndsnger
ing or affecting the ri.h,s OF others. The argu-
ment MA e In support Of The hrst branch OF
this proposition, briefly stated, IS:
T0st ia I'm piied contracts between q state
and CT 2 n certain rights a reserved by th9
Latter watch are "a 8~raGieed b. c1usttuttonei
provision, and With when the state cannot
interfere; that smong those rights Is that OF
IN "a afacturirg for ones " u e, ei,her food
or drink.
The propositions ard the argument made
In support ,s1sl y concede the ri4ht 10 man
uiactarr for one's f~ersDnsl a.e, bal Is tu ct
to the e nlitiou ,hst eucl manufacture does
nct cudau2er or aiIe,t the ri2hte ~ Others.
II such manufacture does pr ~lliciaiy afcrt
the rights and Interests Of the community, II
follows from the very premise stated h)
counsel nat society has 20 ger to prot,c Itself
by legislation against the Injurious cJase-
Quetces Of that business.
As was said In Mum VS.. Iilingers, while the
power does not exist with tie whole people
to cobtr.l rights that are purely aud ex-
c~lu~tvciy p iyatF, the government may require
eac0 els 2 n 80 to condLct him-el', aUd 80 10
use his own p%ropeItI, as 10 cot necessarily in
iure another. Bat by whom or ny what au-
tLority Is to be ut tcrmined whether the msn-
ufnctur Of aty par icuiar ar icle OK drink,
either for general Us % for the personal use
OF the maker, VIII II trsously affect tn put
licl Under our e,stem that power is dyed
wi h tie Legislative branch OF the govern
IN ,nt. l. belongs to that department u exert
what ere known as the police powers o. the
state. 1t must deterU,ine, primarily, what
ene stures are spl ropTiate or needful for The
protection Of public morals, public health or
Public safety. II does not al all follow from
these principles that every statute enacted,
osteEsltIy for the promo Ton q these endr,
10 T. L. accepted ~ the legitimate ~exertion OF
ILa police powers Of the etate. There are, Of
aeceGeity, HATS 6cgond which iegis, @t.on
eannot rightfuGly 20. As the court must obey
rthe constitution rather than the law-naEing
department. OF the government, 1t must upon
Its responsibility determine whether, in any
particular case, these limits have been passed.
Keeping in view these principles, as govern
ing the I~elations with each other OF the
judicial and legislative ep,rtments Of the
government, It is difficult to perceive any
g-ourd fer the j td.c.ary TO declare tnst pro-
h b ton by Kansas OF the manufacture or
sale within her limits, Of intoxicating liquors
for general usa there as beverage is not
fairly adapted TO the end OF protec ing the
commu1i J against he evils whica confess.
go y result FRI III the excessive Use OF srdeut
spirits. There is here no publication for
holding that the state, und, r the guise merely
of POI r regulations, Is aiming 10 deprive any
c,iiz n Of his G institutional rights; FOR We
clnro sGut Out Of view the fact. WITHIN th.
hnowlcdgc OF nl, that puoic heal,h, pubic
NOR 3, an pa5lic e.fety nav SC endangered
~ a general us 4 Intoxicating drinks. Nor
can "" igrore the fact, established
by stqtl.tics, accessible To every one,
that The "a rider, paupersm and crime rev.
lept ia to- country are In a large measure
directly traceable 10 this evil. II, therefore,
the state a. absolute prohibition OF the
tmauu'gc ure and . .e within her limits Of II
toXictting liquors for other than medical,
) 1 u'.Gc znd manufacturing purposes to be
nrct sstry 10 Tie peace aud security Of socirty,
tn G urts cannot, without usnrp'Bg legis a.
rive fuGci0ns, override the viii OF the people
IA hus * roEsed by their chosen representa-
tive; ard %, IL = tie judgment Of the leg s.
Nature, the manufacture Of intoxicating
lal - Tor The nAktr's own use as beverage
would tend 10 cripple II not 10 defeat her
Efforts 70 ;usrd tie community against the
evils after diog the g, cessive use OF such
la loTs, II is not for the courts, upon their
vi US az 20 what is oest aud safest for the
com uuuity, 10 cis eeard the Legislative At
tie m,Gatlon OF tast q lestiou.
WITH EeIrrpuce u ne ass rtion that the
IroatnttioD If the ma lufactufe and sale OF
MGuor u~eyrtvte q n dealers Il the Lro erty
WIN u due or G So II law the court saws that
alt prupe rtN nndcr our form ef govrrutnent.
Is aid slti cr that Il shall not
Be- used ~ "a 10 t. lrtnu lv att CT the
II mr.